Can the FAA Get Rid of Air Traffic Controllers?

by Don Brown

I guess it's only natural to view the world through your own life's experiences. Having been in an uncommon profession -- air traffic control -- I suppose that gives me an uncommon view of  life. I tend to think I was a little more consumed by my job than others -- even other controllers. For over 20 years, I was not only an air traffic controller by "day" (I worked a different shift every day/night/midnight) but I was either helping start the National Air Traffic Controllers Association (NATCA) or I was being a safety rep for it. That means, instead of being a father, husband, baseball coach or solar astronomer -- whatever it was other controllers did with their free time -- I was being an air traffic controller during most of my waking hours. (It's how I met our mutual friend, James Fallows -- answering ATC questions online, after work.)

Speaking of which, I'd be remiss if I didn't bring it up considering the current public debate about public-employee unions. Without a union, I wouldn't have done this, wouldn't have written these, wouldn't have met James and you wouldn't be reading this. Take it for what it's worth.


Moving on. "NextGen" is the FAA's vision for the future of aviation. It looks like different things to different people. Think of it as a "big tent" idea. A big circus tent with three rings in it. You have General Aviation (smaller, private planes), Commercial Aviation (airliners) and Air Traffic Control. Everything looks different depending on which ring you're performing in -- or where you sit in the audience. (I'd best move on before I run any further with this FAA-as-a-three-ring-circus idea.)

James Fallows wrote a book called Free Flight (look over on the right column to find it) about NextGen from a General Aviation perspective. It's an exciting vision of the future. I think I may have unconsciously used a line from it earlier this week.

"America is blessed with a large number of runways. We have 5,194 paved runways."

I hope, after this week's discussion about overscheduled runways, that you can see the possibilities these runways present to the future of aviation (because I want to move on to  ATC's future.) I haven't taken the time to count all the runways at our main commercial airports but I'm going to guess at the nice, round figure of 100 runways. (Atlanta has 5, JFK has 4, LaGuardia has 2, you get the idea.) We keep trying to cram the vast majority of America's passenger traffic onto those 100 runways. Think of a trip from Savannah, GA, to Chattanooga, TN. Both airports have plenty of capacity. But you have to fly into the world's busiest airport -- Atlanta -- to make that trip. Or Charlotte, North Carolina (the 8th busiest commercial airport in the country.) You can't go non-stop on an airliner. We have thousands of paved runways but we keep trying to cram everybody onto the same 100 runways.


I'll go out onto a limb here and say that the airlines don't share General Aviation's vision of moving passengers away from those 100 runways (that airlines dominate.) Not to mention how the various airport authorities that own those runways might feel about it. Commercial Aviation sees NextGen as a program to incrementally increase the capacity of airports through improved technology. It is my belief that all that technology -- added together -- won't match the increase in capacity provided by a few more runways at the major airports. And we've already discussed what happens when we build new runways.

Regardless, any of the above depends on the air traffic control system being able to handle the airplanes. NextGen looks very different to air traffic controllers -- sitting in front of a radar scope. That is one of the things the FAA wants to change with NextGen. They would have you believe that we are going to eliminate radar and use GPS.

"The Senate voted Monday to approve a bill that would speed the modernization of the nation's antiquated air traffic control system by replacing radar with GPS technology."

We can "replace" radar with GPS technology (maybe) but we will not "eliminate" radar. Radar is used to track airplanes -- including those that don't want to be tracked. (Think smugglers. Or Al-Qaeda.) Radar is vital to national security. So, the taxpayers will be paying to operate some kind of radar system and the new system using GPS. But unlike the radar system, the taxpayers won't own the new system.

"Unlike traditional FAA projects where the contractor builds the equipment and turns it over to the agency, ITT will own the infrastructure and supply aircraft position data to the FAA."

That, my friends, will be one heck of a toll booth in the sky. (I apologize for the lack of explanations. There simply isn't enough time or space and I've already strayed further afield than I intended to go.)

Presented by

James Fallows is a national correspondent for The Atlantic and has written for the magazine since the late 1970s. He has reported extensively from outside the United States and once worked as President Carter's chief speechwriter. His latest book is China Airborne. More

James Fallows is based in Washington as a national correspondent for The Atlantic. He has worked for the magazine for nearly 30 years and in that time has also lived in Seattle, Berkeley, Austin, Tokyo, Kuala Lumpur, Shanghai, and Beijing. He was raised in Redlands, California, received his undergraduate degree in American history and literature from Harvard, and received a graduate degree in economics from Oxford as a Rhodes scholar. In addition to working for The Atlantic, he has spent two years as chief White House speechwriter for Jimmy Carter, two years as the editor of US News & World Report, and six months as a program designer at Microsoft. He is an instrument-rated private pilot. He is also now the chair in U.S. media at the U.S. Studies Centre at the University of Sydney, in Australia.

Fallows has been a finalist for the National Magazine Award five times and has won once; he has also won the American Book Award for nonfiction and a N.Y. Emmy award for the documentary series Doing Business in China. He was the founding chairman of the New America Foundation. His recent books Blind Into Baghdad (2006) and Postcards From Tomorrow Square (2009) are based on his writings for The Atlantic. His latest book is China Airborne. He is married to Deborah Fallows, author of the recent book Dreaming in Chinese. They have two married sons.

Fallows welcomes and frequently quotes from reader mail sent via the "Email" button below. Unless you specify otherwise, we consider any incoming mail available for possible quotation -- but not with the sender's real name unless you explicitly state that it may be used. If you are wondering why Fallows does not use a "Comments" field below his posts, please see previous explanations here and here.

How to Cook Spaghetti Squash (and Why)

Cooking for yourself is one of the surest ways to eat well. Bestselling author Mark Bittman teaches James Hamblin the recipe that everyone is Googling.


How to Cook Spaghetti Squash (and Why)

Cooking for yourself is one of the surest ways to eat well.


Before Tinder, a Tree

Looking for your soulmate? Write a letter to the "Bridegroom's Oak" in Germany.


The Health Benefits of Going Outside

People spend too much time indoors. One solution: ecotherapy.


Where High Tech Meets the 1950s

Why did Green Bank, West Virginia, ban wireless signals? For science.


Yes, Quidditch Is Real

How J.K. Rowling's magical sport spread from Hogwarts to college campuses


Would You Live in a Treehouse?

A treehouse can be an ideal office space, vacation rental, and way of reconnecting with your youth.

More in Technology

From This Author

Just In